Rethinking the Transferable Adversarial Attacks and Robust Defense in Federated Learning
Authors: Zuobin Xiong, Deval Mukherjee, Homook Cho, Wei Li
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, USA · Cyber Security Research Center at KAIST, Daejeon, South Korea · Department of Computer Science, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
The development of federated learning (FL) techniques has helped improve the privacy preservation of users' data and extended the applications of machine learning models. However, the involvement of a large number of users in FL also creates open opportunities for different adversaries, such as poisoning attacks, Byzantine attacks, and adversarial example attacks. Yet, recent research has disclosed that existing poisoning attacks and Byzantine attacks can not achieve satisfactory penetration in realistic FL scenarios caused by strong assumptions, e.g., client selection rate, and the ratio of malicious attackers. In this paper, the transferability of adversarial examples among different client models is analyzed to understand the relation between adversarial examples and clients' data distribution. Moreover, to mitigate the attacks of transferable adversarial examples, we design a defense mechanism stemming from the transferability of model robustness by adversarial training. As a result, through theoretical analysis of transferability, we gain insights into adversarial examples and the vulnerability of federated learning systems. Our proposed adversarial attack and defense methods are evaluated via real-life datasets in various settings to show their performance over the existing state-of-the-art methods.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the Federated Learning Framework used in this study.
Fig. 2: Correlation between Model Distance and Attack Success Rate (Fig. 2a , 2b ), and between Distribution Distance and Attack Transferability (Fig. 2c , 2d ) across different datasets.
Method
Clean
VMIFGSM
BIM
VNIFGSM
DIFGSM
VGG11
Standard FedProx
94.49
<1
<1
<1
<1
FAT (Baseline)
93.53
81.57
84.22
81.49
78.01
Ours
92.62
83.26
85.39
83.28
79.87
Centralized (Upper Bound)
95.68
94.57
93.78
93.43
94.96
WRN28
TABLE I: Comparison of defense accuracy (%) against various transfer-based adversarial attacks on CIFAR-10 (IID) .
Method
Clean
VMIFGSM
BIM
VNIFGSM
DIFGSM
VGG11
Standard FedProx
97.78
<1
<1
<1
<1
FAT (Baseline)
95.69
43.13
54.13
42.93
43.05
Ours
95.67
48.71
61.55
48.59
45.55
Centralized (Upper Bound)
98.33
90.20
93.44
89.86
84.75
WRN28
TABLE II: Comparison of defense accuracy (%) against various transfer-based adversarial attacks on SVHN (IID) .
Method
Clean
VMIFGSM
BIM
VNIFGSM
DIFGSM
VGG11
Standard FedProx
87.01
<1
<1
<1
<1
FAT (Baseline)
86.14
47.52
49.00
47.55
45.14
Ours
83.56
52.58
53.59
52.52
49.89
WRN28
Standard FedProx
75.56
<1
<1
<1
<1
TABLE III: Comparison of defense accuracy (%) against various transfer-based adversarial attacks on CIFAR-10 (Non-IID) .
Method
Clean
VMIFGSM
BIM
VNIFGSM
DIFGSM
VGG11
Standard FedProx
95.34
<1
<1
<1
<1
FAT (Baseline)
93.56
27.64
32.90
27.42
27.38
Ours
94.05
28.95
36.30
28.75
28.48
WRN28
Standard FedProx
92.45
<1
<1
<1
<1
TABLE IV: Comparison of defense accuracy (%) against various transfer-based adversarial attacks on SVHN (Non-IID) .
College of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China · MIIT Key Laboratory of Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Nanjing, China.